FOCUS GROUP REPORT

Action A.2: Attitudes of humans toward bears and

bear management

Prepared by Aleksandra Majić, Tadeja Rome and

Slaven Reljić

March, 2015

2

Contents Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

Description of methods .............................................................................................................. 3

Results ........................................................................................................................................ 5

About the sample .................................................................................................................... 5

Bear-human conflicts ............................................................................................................. 6

Bears feeding on anthropogenic food sources .................................................................... 6

Damages in agriculture / hunting ....................................................................................... 7

Danger for human safety .................................................................................................... 8

Support/appreciation and roles in bear management ......................................................... 8

The most important problems of bear management ............................................................... 9

Perception about population size .......................................................................................... 10

Hunting (of bears) ................................................................................................................ 10

Poaching ............................................................................................................................... 11

Tourism ................................................................................................................................ 11

3

Introduction Apart from the expert knowledge of the project team members, small structured in-depth

group interviews were chosen as the most appropriate method for collecting qualitative data

on public opinions about bears and bear management.

The purpose of implementing focus groups was to identify and document the ranges of

attitudes, opinions and perceptions present among local inhabitants in a qualitative way. This

is needed as a base for preparation of a targeted quantitative questionnaire to study public

attitudes towards bears and bear management in the project area.

Description of methods We were interested in opinions of inhabitants of our project area. We chose communities that

were candidates for participation in conflict mitigation measures actions (C1 and C2) or were

in other ways interested in participating in the project (i.e. information and dissemination

actions). A particular care was taken to include an area where bears are only sporadically

present but conflicts are high (alpine are in Slovenia) and a particularly active sheep farmer

was approached.

“Snowballing” method was used to recruit participants. Once first contact was established,

this person was asked to invite other potential candidates. Apart from the interview in the

alpine region which was carried out in the person’s home, all meetings were organized locally

in community buildings. Refreshments for participants were provided by the project. With

participants’ approval, all meetings were audio-recorded for later analysis. All participants

will receive project’s t-shirts and hats (once they are produced) as a sign of gratitude for their

participation.

Focus group discussion was carried out according to a previously defined and agreed topics

and questions presented in Table 1. In addition to these, several questions related to the non-

consumptive use of bears in tourism (e.g. bear viewing, photography) were added to the

interview guide used in Slovenia.

Table 1: Question guide developed for implementation of the focus groups.

Topic

Questions

Introduction Go round the table, everybody introduces themselves briefly (e.g.,

occupation or whatever else they find important, what is the first

thing that comes to your mind when you think of bears).

Personal experiences

with bears

Do you have any personal experiences with the bears? Can you tell

us briefly what happened?

Any positive experiences? (e.g. observing a bear in a ZOO)

Probe for feelings – how did you feel when this happened?

4

Conflicts What are the problems that bears cause to people in this area?

Which one of the mentioned problems so far would you pick as the

most important to be dealt with?

Are there differences between individual bears in the ways how they

behave, in your view?

If they are extremely against bears, probe into personal history of

being against bears, reasons for this, social influences etc, for

example:

Can you remember when and why you came to be of this opinion

about bears?

What about your family and friends – do they share your view?

But make sure you ask the same questions to all participants, so that

you don’t single out the negative ones!

Solutions What would be the best solutions for these problems (probe for

whatever they have mentioned as a problem- you should make notes

when they mention problems!)?

Who do you think should be responsible for implementation of these

solutions? (probe for government, land owners, anyone else?)

If funding for prevention measures would be secured, do you think it

would be successful? What would be the main obstacles, if any?

Would all this have any effect on how people perceive bears? What

would be different? Why?

Bear management Can you tell me about bears in this area?

Are they often seen by people, what do they feed on, how many

young do they have, are there too many or too few,….

Do bears belong to this area, in your view?

How should the bears be managed and by whom?

Also probe for habitat management in general

How do you think local people should be involved in bear

management decision-making?

What is your view on bear population size estimates?

Who provides information on bears that you trust?

What do you think are the biggest problems in bear management (in

Slovenia)?

Hunting of bears What is your opinion about bear hunting? Is it justifiable? Why?

Do you think is necessary (or good) to hunt bears (in Slovenia)?

5

Why?

Why do you thing some groups approve and some oppose bear

hunting?

Which are those groups?

Are there any cases of illegal hunting of bears here?

What do you think about these?

Under which conditions would this be justifiable, in your view?

Results All together we’ve carried out five in-depth interviews, four of which were focus groups and

one traditional one to one interview. The interview (coded SLO3) was carried out in the

Alpine part of Slovenia and with a sheep breeder. The focus groups were carried out in

Slovenia (coded SLO1 and SLO2) and in Croatia (coded HRV1 and HRV2).

About the sample

SLO1: Eight local inhabitants of villages in the area of Cerknica, where density of brown

bears is high. Some of them are hunters; there is also a breeder, a teacher of natural sciences

in elementary school, a herbalist and a mushroom picker. Some of them are also dog owners.

All of them say that they had at least indirect experiences with bears (experienced damage,

seen footprints). They respect the animal. Those who visit forest regularly (hunters, teacher)

often see bears, others saw bear on the road (car) or didn't see it at all. Herbalist points out

that she has never seen a bear, but she is afraid of them, even though she doesn't know why

(fear). Breeder points out that he saw a fresh bear footprint near his house in the village in

daylight in January 2014 and concludes that bears don't hibernate at all (negative feeling).

Herbalist also saw footprints in the area where children play (fear). Participants say that in

their area there is a lot of bears, some of them are problematic bears, people can even

distinguish particular bears by fur colour. Bears destroy field crops, fruit trees, feed on

garbage containers, bales, and even take some sheep, encounters with humans. They believe

that bears belong to this area since there are a lot of forests. But they point out that there

shouldn't be too many bears.

SLO 2: Eight local inhabitants of villages in the area of Pivka, where the population of brown

bears is not so dense (periphery zone). Some of them are hunters, there were also a cow

breeder, a cyclists, a tourist guide, an owner of a horse ranch and an employee of the

municipality Pivka responsible for tourism. They didn't have any bad experiences with bears.

Most of them encountered bear - in the woods or on the road, driving a car. None of them is

said that they are afraid of bears. According to the participants there are bears in the area, but

they don't do so much damage in this area. All of the participants think that bears belong to

this area.

SLO 3: Sheep farmer from the Kobarid area. He believes bears are only “passing by” in his

area. He mentioned several times that he’s afraid for his children’s safety. He has experienced

6

damage done by a bear to his sheep flock. He never saw a bear. He has a negative experience,

because he and his child saw fresh carcass (bear prey) in the alpine meadow, therefore the

bear was in the vicinity. He stresses out that this was very negative experience for his child,

who couldn't sleep for quite some time. According to the participant, there are 6-7 bears in the

area at the moment, one of them is problematic. He points out that bears don't belong to this

area, they never have, and that this is only (and has ever been) transitional area for bears.

HRV 1: Seven local inhabitants of Kuterevo - village where bear sanctuary is located (some

are forest workers, construction workers, farmers, manager of the bear sanctuary). Even

though encounters with bears seem to be quite often, they describe them as special events.

Bears are "beautiful to see" (admiration). They mention that bear is "taking care of its own

business", call the bear "king of the forest". One person was attacked by a female bear and

was hospitalized for 20 days - he pointed out that it was his own fault since he wanted to

admire the cubs from up-close. Another person encountered a bear near a carcass in the forest

but has retrieved right away. One person mentions bears regularly visit his vegetable garden.

According to the participants there are 7 female bears in vicinity of the village. In recent years

there are more bears. They feed with everything thy find - fruits, carcases, there is plenty of

food for bears here. They don't attack sheep. Bears absolutely belong to this area, probably in

highest densities in Croatia.

HRV 2: All six participants are hunters from Lika area. One is a driver, carpenter, forester,

MSc in economics. They all are mentioning damages that bears cause (in hunting) already in

the introduction part. They all have seen and encountered bears in many occasions and they

mention that bears are afraid of humans and that they run away. Two persons mention that

meeting a female with cubs is the only circumstance when a person should retrieve, otherwise

its bears that should move away. One person mentions bears making problems in traffic (he

had to wait for a bear to move off a road) and damaging feeding stations for wild boar. One

person mentions that bears are dangerous.

Bear-human conflicts

Bears feeding on anthropogenic food sources

SLO1: Bears are coming to settlements, where they damage orchards (fruit trees), eat field

crops and feed on garbage containers (they mention that bears seem to be fond of baby

diapers). Some of them think this is human's fault, but they don't think or trust that bear-proof

containers will do any difference. One thinks that this would be a good way to stop

habituation of future generations of bears, others agree. One hunter points out that bear is very

smart and knows perfectly well when to come to the settlements to feed or when there are

available other food sources. Mainly hunters seem suspicious about the measures to prevent

habituation of bears (such as bear-proof containers). Also mention of younger bear coming

near hunters' cottage where they also have picnics, even waiting for food (habituation to

humans).

SLO2: Bears feeding on garbage containers, they think this is reason why bears come to the

settlements (conclusion made by comparison with human behaviour in the past). They point

out that bears and other animals are coming near the settlements because the forest and shrubs

are spreading to the houses. One of them even tells (personal experience) how people throw

carcasses to the shrubs near the road and settlement, which then attract bears to human

vicinity. They agree that human behaviour is driving bears near the settlements. They also

point out the absence of bear feeding sites with carrion. In their opinion this they are a good

7

way to keep the bears in the woods.

SLO3: No mention about bears feeding on garbage containers. He mentions mainly damages

in agriculture.

HRV1: Mention that bears come to the garbage containers in the village. Clearly point out

that people are responsible for this. Also they think that the cause of the problem is that they

discard lamb skins to the containers and not to the forest as they did in the past. They point

out that these containers need to be fixed as well as their own behaviour which misleads the

bears into behaving badly.

HRV2: No mention about bears feeding on garbage containers.

Damages in agriculture / hunting

SLO1: Mention of damaged silage bales, destroying of fruit trees, beehives, disappearance of

sheep (they believe that wolf is mainly responsible for this problem) and eating field crops,

especially maize, carrot and red beet. They point out that the best (if not only) solution would

be reestablishment of carrion sites for feeding bears as that would provide enough nutrition to

the bears in the forest, thus they would not approach villages in search of food. Belief that

people would like bears more if there would be fewer conflicts. But they point out that people

should be more educated about bears and people behaviour in areas where bears are abundant.

SLO2: Silage bales are being damaged all the time; otherwise they point out that they don't

have many conflicts with bears. The municipality employee is in close contact with several

sheep breeders, who say that they don't have real issues with bears. Mention of damaged fruit

trees. They know that living in the countryside has its characteristics and they accept animals

in their surroundings. Notion that fewer conflicts would positively affect people's opinion

about bears.

SLO3: The interviewee mentions destroyed beehives, attacks on cows, foals and sheep. He

points out that the real problem are “problematic” bears who seem to be killing ''for fun'', who

kill 6-7 sheep in one night. Also the carrion sites would decrease the killings of the sheep. He

points out that fencing the meadows in the Alps is practically impossible. He also thinks that

protecting his flock of sheep would be immoral as bears would then attack his neighbour’s

sheep and the problem would not be solved. He thinks if there would be fewer conflicts,

people would tolerate bears more.

HRV1: Participants mention bears coming to vegetable gardens - interestingly no notion that

humans are in any way responsible; also they mention that it is not possible to change this

behaviour. They compare bears to children that are stealing neighbour's fruits. They think

hunters should give compensations (as they did before). They also have sheep but no damages

(they mention bears being chased away by livestock-guarding dogs). Notion that each person

is responsible for their own goods (i.e. fencing vegetable garden); notion that it is “unfair to

profit by making bears look bad”.

HRV2: The main problem they see is that the government is not paying compensations for

damages caused by bears but hunters have to do it. Another issue that all of the participating

hunters mention is damages that bears cause to hunting of other game species (eat and destroy

feed prepared for wild boar, scare wild boar when wild boar hunt is happening). One person

mentioned damages in agriculture (carrots and honey bees). Another person mentioned

damages to sheep farming. As solution they mention that the government should pay

compensations for bear damages, including feeding stations for wild boar. Also they mention

8

that concession fees (for hunting) should be lower in areas where there are large carnivores.

Notion that people don't really care if they "sell" the corn to the bear or to the others, so if

they get compensation, they “would be happy”. Notion that bears belong here.

Danger for human safety

SLO1: Main belief is that people are going to the forest too often/there are too many people.

They point out Slivnica hill, where people are hiking on several (8) trails - they think that

there are too many trails, animals don't have peace, they can't hide from humans, therefore

number of encounters between bears and humans is more likely to be higher. They also point

out people walking dogs in the woods should know not to let free their dogs, dog owners

know and respect that (greater danger for humans to encounter bears). They propose less

paths on the Slivnica hill, dogs should be kept on the leash. They also think that in the woods

there should be fewer people with motor sleds, motorbikes and that cyclists should use forest

roads only. As a solution they propose leaflets with information on how to behave in the

forest and how to react when it comes to bear encounter.

SLO2: They know some people in their area who are afraid of going to the woods because of

the bears. They point out that the number of people, who are coming into the woods for

leisure and fun is increasing, which disturbs animals and can lead to encounters with bears.

Hunter says that there is “always present fear, which is close to panic and panic leads to

problems”. They think use of forests should be regulated. One person points out that people

are afraid of bears because they don't know how to behave. They point out education about

human behaviour in bear dominated landscape, as first and the most important solution

(kindergartens, elementary schools, boards for tourists in Slovene and foreign languages,

leaflets).

SLO3: He mentions cases about bears attacking people (tourists). There are also present

encounters between bear and humans - on the road, near the campfire, which scares people.

He believes that these are all “problem bears” and that those should be removed by culling.

He believes that if the bears would be collared (GPS), they would know which of them are

problematic and therefore they would kill them. With this solution, he thinks, the people

would feel safer. He suggests that GPS collars are also a way of controlling bear behaviour.

HRV1: One person mentions as a side-statement that there are also "accidents" with bears

(meaning attacks). They point out an "abstract" problem. In their opinion there is too much

fear of bear, especially among those "that have never seen a bear" (city folks). Visitors are

asking them what to do if they see a bear. One person thinks a notice board with info on how

to behave when you encounter a bear should be set up in areas where visitors come

(mountaineers).

HRV2: No mention of danger for human safety. They do mention however, that people are

afraid of bears since they come to the villages.

Support/appreciation and roles in bear management

SLO1: They clearly express a distrust of government - because of bad previous experiences

with the ministry concerning bear management plans, lack of funds for guarding the livestock

and because of general political picture in the country. Breeder suggests that breeders on the

area with bears should get extra funding for guarding the livestock. One also points out that

expenses for compensations are even bigger than would be the funding to prevent conflicts in

agriculture. Everybody thinks that solely country/ government/ ministry is responsible for

9

managing bears - some of them even say: ''those who protected the bears should take

responsibilities''. They think that opinion of local inhabitants should be taken into account

more than it is currently, especially hunters' knowledge and opinions, also breeders’ and

beekeepers’. They point out that people, who live with bears, who really know what means

living in the area with bears, should participate in bear management (''not the city folks from

skyscrapers'').

SLO2: A distrust of government was expressed - they trust scientists who propose solutions to

the ministry, but they think that the ministry fails. They propose rangers (hunters) who would

have authorities to fine people, if necessary (forest use). The government, the ministry should

take responsibility of bear management. The mistrust of government is much pronounced.

They believe that local inhabitants should be part of team for bear management, but they

should have a representative, who isn't a politician, but someone who knows the situation in

the area (an expert).

SLO3: He points out the slowness of bureaucracy. Belief in removal of problematic bears,

which now takes very long time (few months). Great mistrust of government. The country or

government should take responsibility of the bears. He believes that local inhabitants should

be a part of the management team, their words should be heard. He believes if the situation

will continue to be like it is, poaching of bears is the next reasonable step.

HRV1: One person points out that in their village people live in "harmony with wilderness"

(bear as a symbol of wilderness). But there is a lack of appreciation from the government's

side. Now since there is a national park here, the locals even have to pay entrance fees to the

park. Government should provide some kind of reward for the people that are still living here

(“and not in Zagreb”) and take care of them. Government should delegate someone from the

village to participate in bear management (taking care for the garbage containers). Local

people cannot make decisions (it is hunters' job) but can participate if there are big problems

(but here we don't have big problems). Opinion that for managing bears the hunters have

everything necessary (they are present in bear habitats, they feed bears and they like taking

care of bears, they have guns and can scare bears if they come to the village). All of the

participants mention hunters as the key group for managing bears.

HRV2: They repeatedly mention that the lack of support and clear rules by the government is

the main problem in bear management. Government should pay for compensation (and not

hunters as it is now). Local people should be involved mainly through education. One person

thinks that there should be more dialogue with the local public (to explain that hunters don't

want to shoot all the bears). They also mention that local people often expect them (hunters)

to do something about bears (e.g. shoot more of them to resolve conflicts) and they don't

understand that hunters are not responsible for making such decisions. Hunters suggest

dialogue and questionnaires with local people.

The most important problems of bear management

SLO1: One of them believes that the biggest problem in bear management is mistrust among

all participants. One of them suggests that there should be a limit of bears and that every year

the culling quota should be the same to avoid “negotiations” and decrease the possibility of

different interests to influence the decision.

SLO2: Bad management - ministry isn't doing things as it should. The mistrust of government

is stressed again.

10

SLO3: He thinks that number of bears in core areas is too high, which results in bear

migration (to the Alps). Whole bear management should be restarted - the way it is now isn't

good.

HRV1: Participants explain that the population size is unknown and speculate about it in

relation to the culling quota. "Privatization" of hunting rights was mentioned several times in

this regard - “public treasure is being managed by private interests”. They dislike the fact

that the "best" bears are being culled and not only the "sick or wounded" (trophy hunting).

HRV2: Institutional arrangements of bear management - hunters are responsible for damage

compensations but are not part of the decision-making process (e.g. to take out a problem

bear). As a result compensations are not paid in most cases. Also farmers are not familiar with

these arrangements. Local inhabitants are afraid of bears as they often enter villages.

Perception about population size

SLO1: In general they think that the number of bears is too high - they use correlation with

traffic accidents and encounters with humans. Hunters trust “their own” estimations, but they

point out that others don't. They are not familiar with other estimations of the population size

(e.g. via non-invasive genetics).

SLO2: They agree that the number of bears is increasing, but for some of them there are not

enough bears, because they want to “see them more often”. Hunter explains that this area is

the periphery zone of bears in Slovenia. One of the hunters says ''until they don't come to the

settlements, there can be lots of them''

SLO3: The number is acceptable if they aren't problematic. Bears are staying in this

“transitional area”, which he sees as a problem. Bears are supposed just to migrate to Austria

or Italy and not stay here.

HRV1: One person believes hunters and their estimations; others doubt that stating that

hunters overestimate the number of bears, so that they can hunt more

HRV2: Hunters trust their own experiences and they believe that there are more bears than

what official estimates are. They also believe that it is impossible to correctly estimate

population size.

Hunting (of bears)

SLO1: Hunting is acceptable and even necessary, to control the bear population size. They

think that some groups of people are trying to prevent hunting of bears (and other animals),

but they don't know the reality about living with bears.

SLO2: Some of them think hunting is acceptable to control the population, they trust experts'

opinions. One believes that there is no need for regular quotas if the bears are in the woods

and if there aren't too many. They approve killings of problematic bears, even though they

know that people are responsible. They believe that people, who are strongly against all

hunting of bears, don't know the reality, because they don't live in bear inhabited areas.

SLO3: In general, he isn't fond of killing animals, but he thinks it is necessary to maintain the

population. He believes that some groups of people are against killings and the problem

occurs, when government takes into account (mainly) their opinion. He believes all “problem

bears” should be culled.

HRV1: On this matter the participants express their trust to the competence of local hunting

11

organizations. Mention foreign (Italian) hunters as “arrogant and wanting to shoot all

wildlife”. No one questions hunting of bears - they see hunting of bears as the only way to

"control the numbers", they mention management plan as the base document. One person

states he does not really like hunting in general. Preference of removing problematic bears

instead of selling "trophy bears" (they mention that those who profit financially are the ones

most in support of bear hunting). One person mentions "natural selection" as a better solution

to hunting ("there cannot be too many bears in nature").

HRV2: Hunters believe that hunting is necessary to control the population size. They

emphasize that the main problem is the recent decrease of the price of bear trophy. They also

mention that quotas might be too small. Hunters acknowledge that different people have

different views regarding hunting. Notion that hunting is much more than shooting animals:

"…hunting to me is when I come to the high stand and watch roe deer grazing and take

photos, … when I observe a nice roe deer buck and imagine how even more beautiful it will

be next year. When he is seven years old I hunt it or not, I might also find it in the scat of a

wolf or a bear. I am trying to explain what is hunting…”.

Poaching

SLO1: They don't know any local cases of poaching, only from the media (e.g. in Austria).

They point out that expenses for illegal killings are too high, so hunters don't do that - if they

wanted to have a bear as a trophy, the ballistics would find out what have they done. They

also say that illegal killing of a bear is impossible, because the bear is too heavy for one

person to carry and they would be seen in the village. Hunters agree that they don't shoot a

bear just to kill it, but they want to have a trophy, to be admired by the community.

SLO2: They don't know any local cases of bear poaching. They think that hiding a carcass of

a bear would be very hard and they don't believe anybody in their area does that.

SLO3: He doesn't know any cases of illegal killings and he doesn't approve it. But, he stresses

out, it is the next possible step if bear management does not improve.

HRV1: They share ethical arguments in favour of poaching: with or without license it is the

same for the bear. If you kill a bear to feed your family is not such a sin as if you kill it for

trophy. There are 4 hunting clubs in the area and "poaching is the 5th one". They don't know

of any specific cases but all point out that it exists.

HRV2: Poaching “is present, was always present and will be present”. They say that

poaching of bears is not so much present as poaching of game species for meat (deer, roe

deer) due to the economic situation. They believe much more could be done to minimize

poaching. They mention that poaching is controlled “not in the forest, but on the roads” and

that police is not very active in this regard.

Tourism

SLO1: Participants estimate that there is interest for this kind of tourism. They point out

several negative “sides”, if the bear-watching tourism would be readily available: “could be

dangerous for tourists, who would be responsible for possible accidents, bears could become

self-evident”. They think that people with this interest can find a way to observe and

photograph bears even now and that it should not be additionally advertised or organized.

SLO2: Opinions about bear tourism are divided - tour guide supports the idea, hunters are

against. They all agree that there is an interest. One points out that if the objective of the

12

project (and in general) is to prevent conflicts between humans and bears, there shouldn't be

any tourists’ activities which include observing wild bears - this is just a chance for conflicts.

SLO3: He points out that in his area bear tourism doesn't have any future. There are other

branches of tourism which are much more important and bear tourism would even have

negative impact (fear).

Interpretation

The results of the focus groups suggest that understanding of human-bear conflict varies

considerably across the project area. For some participants knowing that bears are around

already presents a conflict to some degree, while others tolerate even bears feeding in their

vegetable gardens. As a result the questions targeted to explore human-bear conflict to be

included in the questionnaire for the quantitative survey of public attitudes should probe for

phenomena in a most neutral way possible. Terminology that carries a value-linked meaning

should be avoided. For example, instead of using “bear damages to sheep” the questionnaire

should offer “bear feeding on sheep”. For the same reason, the sampling for the quantitative

study should be stratified according to the political arrangements (country) and bear presence

information (continuous presence, sporadic presence, no bears).

It seems that person’s experiences with bears and their demographic background, especially if

they belong to a specific interest group (e.g. hunters, farmers, tourism workers) also defines

how they perceive bears and bear management, thus it will be important to carefully design a

set of questions asking about the respondent’s background.

Our results suggest that public, especially in the areas with continuous bear presence, is quite

familiar with basic bear biology, so a set of questions targeting knowledge about bears with

regards to the key communication messages of the project should be included.

Perceptions and opinions about the bear population size and questions addressing these topics

are probably the best way of exploring the current tolerance limits among the residents of the

project area.

Knowledge about ways of mitigating bear-caused damages generally seems quite limited, so

only simple belief questions regarding this topic are to be included in the questionnaire.